Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS review

Design

At first glance the 55-200mm looks much like any other telezoom lens, with a broad zoom ring in the centre of the barrel and a manual focus ring towards the front, plus a couple of control switches on the side. However a closer look reveals that there's also an aperture ring towards the back of the barrel, close to the camera body. Like on the XF 18-55mm zoom, but unlike the Fujinon primes, this is unmarked and has no end-stops. Rotating it one click results in a 1/3 stop change in the aperture setting.

What the pictures alone can't convey is the high quality of construction. The exterior of the barrel is all metal, with a ribbed rubber coating on the zoom ring. The extending section is made from high-quality plastic, and there's impressively little play at full telephoto. The overall impression is of a distinctly premium product that feels totally at home on the X-Pro1.

On the camera

The 55-200mm is, as you'd expect, the largest XF lens so far, and starts to look decidedly bulky on the X-Pro1 let alone the smaller X-E1. Despite this is it still handles quite acceptably - you simply support the camera and lens with your left hand. However the rangefinder-style form factor never feels quite as comfortable for telephoto work as an SLR, and we suspect many users will prefer to use this lens with an accessory grip on the camera, especially for extended shooting periods.

The smooth and well-damped zoom ring falls naturally to hand, providing the main support for the camera/lens combination. The aperture ring is situated close behind it, and its not-too-tight click stops mean that it can be adjusted by reaching backward with your ring finger. Likewise the focus ring can be operated by reaching forward with your forefinger, and overall it's possible to operate all three controls without having to substantially change your grip on the lens while shooting.

One minor point is that the lens barrel substantially underhangs the camera body. This could conceivably cause problems with large quick release tripod plates, although a cut-out in the conical portion of the barrel gives about 30mm clearance in front of the centre-point of the tripod socket. (It also means that the camera doesn't sit flat when set down on a table).

Behaviour with the X-Pro1's optical viewfinder

When the 55-200mm is used on the X-Pro1, it's possible to use the optical viewfinder as usual across a very restricted range at the wide end of the zoom. But as soon as you get past 60mm, the frameline in the viewfinder turns red and no longer adjusts in size as you zoom in further. This makes sense to us - at this point the frameline is getting pretty small in the finder, and parallax error becoming progressively less predictable. Overall it's simply more practical to switch to the EVF and be done with it.

Size and design compared to XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS

Here's the 55-200mm alongside the XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS standard zoom, which is the 'kit' lens for the X-E1. It offers essentially identical layout and operation, with all the same controls in all the same places, which should make swapping between the two a breeze. It is, of course, distinctly larger and heavier.

Lens body elements

The lens uses Fujifilm's own X mount, meaning it will work on the company's X-series mirrorless cameras only.

All communication between the camera and lens is electronic, and both focus and aperture are set electronically too. Neither can be adjusted with the lens removed from the camera.

The filter thread is 62mm, which unfortunately isn't shared with any existing XF lenses. Filters don't rotate on focusing.

The manual focus ring has a finely-ridged metal grip that's a relatively generous 15mm wide. It's beautifully-damped and rotates very smoothly, but without any end stops.

As with the other X-system lenses, manual focusing is electronically- rather than mechanically-coupled, and works by driving the lens's built-in focus motors.

The zoom ring has a finely-ribbed 37mm wide grip, and rotates 60 degrees between the 55 and 200mm settings. The barrel extends 58mm (2.3") in the process, with impressively little play at full telephoto.

Two small switches control image stabilization and aperture setting.
With the latter in the 'A' position the camera sets the aperture automatically (i.e. either Program or Shutter Priority mode). The switches are slightly differently shaped to aid identification by touch.

The aperture ring itself is unmarked, with click stops at 6° intervals which each give 1/3 stop changes in aperture value.

The lens comes with a 65mm (2.6") deep, bayonet-type cylindrical hood. It's moulded from thick black plastic, with internal ribbing to minimise the reflection of stray light into the lens.

The hood reverses over the lens for storage. This leaves about 9mm of the zoom ring's grip accessible - just about enough to grab for a quick shot.

The hood has index marks for mounting it on the lens (a solid circle for shooting, an open one for reversing). It fits quite tightly on the lens, and we've found it to be oddly difficult to take on and off by feel without lining these marks up first.

Reported aperture vs focal length

The camera reports the following apertures at the focal lengths marked on the zoom ring:

I too have been changing from a bulky slr type camera to fuji as the lens quality is first class along with there size, aperture, and weight of their cameras and lenses. Who said that larger format is better than apsc they didn't recon on the fuji x range

I have been making the transition from DSLR to Mirror less this year. I currently have The Fuji's Xpro 1 & Xe1 Everything is amazing so far except the 55-200 lens on the Xpro 1. Any ideas, comments, or... To make this experience better. The lens on the X Pro 1 is workable but not seeing the whole zoom in the view finder making it a challenge to use zoomed out past 100. Love to hear some feedback.Thanks in advance.Ken

Hi, Prior to get this lens, I am worrying about the photo #3 @ 95mm F4 ,that shows the London parliament. To me , it's not soft, it's blurred. Am I going to obtain that kind of picture if the camera automatically applies some correction for pincushion distortion ?? Even the flowers and leaves #4, are under a normal sharpness level. Anyone 's got more clues or samples ?

I LOVE THIS LENS!I use this lens with the Fuji X-Pro 1 and it rivals my similar Nikon and Canon lenses I've used.I've been a pro photog for 25+ years and really praise the Fuji X system and lenses I've used.Photos are very sharp and it does not hunt as much in low light like my Canon or Nikon long range zooms did.

How fast is fast and how slow is slow? To me, the important thing is whether it is fast enough for your needs. I am a careful and deliberate shooter. I remember when AF was a thing of the future and everyone had to manually focus. The first auto focus cameras did a lot of hunting before settling down and we all thought it was wonderful. My internet provider is lightening fast and it's major competitor promises even faster operation. But do I need it? I am only so fast and the older I get, the less fast I am. I guess this is a long winded way of saying that as a Fuji-XPro-1 user with all the latest firmware downloadsAF is lightening fast for me, although my OM-D is somewhat faster. So, how fast do you really need aside from enhancing your bragging rights when comparing cameras?

Well put. I am waiting for the X-E2 to have a smaller system in my kit as I too am getting older and my 1d MKII is killing my wrist after 8-10 hours of photographing weddings. I think the Fuji will be a great relief pitcher so-to-speak come the reception and I suspect I'll use it too with portraits. I hope they get their game on for a small flash capable of high speed sync.

Whether you consider the AF to be slow or fast depends on what you are shooting. If one is shooting landscape or stationary subjects, it is fast enough but if you are shooting catwalk models or football it is not fast enough.

I use manual focus for a lot of my landscape, low light, macro photography and stationary portraits and it is still fast enough. For fast moving subject like sports or the MotorGP, a DSLR like a Canon 1DX with a fast AF lens is a must to have a high success rate.

So, one should not expect too much from this lens. It is just for casual use.

"Was super fast AF really that important?How come 1% top earning professional photograhers are still using MF camera on manual focus mode?"

What does this even mean? 99% use AF and Auto exposure settings? Or the reverse? Either way...I HIGHLY doubt 99% of any photographers use MF or AF. Why make up stupid stats. AF is a good thing. I am a 27 year pro photographer that started with film and MF. Would I be ok if AF went away...sure..do I want it to...he'll no! My X Pro 1 and X100s are slower at autofocusing than my Nikon DSLRs...duh! They are different cameras. Does that make the Fujis useless...of course not.

The samples pages really just prove that good light and decent composition are always more important than the gear. That said - Fuji does manage to achieve a distinct and great look to images that suit it's strengths. Bravo Fuji.

I've had to use Fuji support for three separate issues with the X-Pro1 and X100, while that seems quite a lot given that I've shot with Nikon & Canon for 15 years and never needed to use support from either the support I've received from Fuji was excellent. the Fuji support alone would keep me as a future customer.

Actually Fuji USA gave me *for free* an F810 because my F710 imported from Japan and never sold in the USA, had the sensor issue where it would die in a couple of years. They offered me to have to wait and pay a lot to get an F710 replacement from Japan or give me an F810 model for free.

They were simply great. Now, this was a long time ago so don't know how they are now, but if that's any indication, they are really good.

Quite likely it depends on the country. In the Uk I've had two issues for which the service wasn't great. A fuji F30 that had a severe soft-on-the-left problem. Unfixed the first time around, kludge fix the second time around that left the whole image slightly soft instead of just the left side. the second was recieving a dubious X-Pro1 battery from Amazon ('fulfilled by amazon') that took them several weeks to reply to an email, and so far, several weeks after sending photos of it, no reply.

Late to the party but still relevant, a couple of years back sent my grey market X-T1 to Fuji Australia for that infamous rubber door buckle issue and they fixed it no questions asked even though they knew it wasn't Australian stock, they even listed a complimentary sensor clean on the repair docket.

"This is helped by the fact that with their latest firmware updates, the X-Pro1 and X-E1 now offer one of the quickest interfaces around for setting the size and position of the AF point with the camera to your eye."

Not sure about this statement by the author. I have an X-E1 and I don't think setting the focus point is that fast. I still have to push the left button, then the right cursor wheel. The Canon 7D is much faster with the joystick.

You don't- that's what dpreview was exactly talking about- *after* the firmware upgrade you can do all the AF settings on the right side/right hand only. If you have not seen that, upgrade to the latest firmware then press the down button arrow on the right side.

There is nothing quick about setting the AF point on the Fujis. Even with the update it's still clunky at best. It changes the viewfinder, which eats up some time. Then you move the point and half-press (and hope it focuses right). If the subject moves you go through the whole process again.

One of the main reasons I ditched my XPro-1 was because even with the fix it's still pretty slow.

Fuji should implement an AF priority mode that allows you to change the AF points on the fly like a DSLR. Even if it required using the EVF only it would be a good feature to have to speed up AF with moving subjects.

Mirrorless camera are good at what they are as a compact camera for travelling and street photography. When one need to have reasonably fast tracking focus, they fail miserably. Even the latest OMD-EM1 is having a tough time proving it can with its on-chip PDAF.

When one want fast tracking focus for sports or bird photography, one still need to use the Canon 1DX or at least the 7D with an L lens. Too bad it has to be this way for the moment.

Raist3d, I already upgraded my X-E1 to 2.0 firmware and the lens as well. I have tried to activate the focus point selection mode with only the right hand buttons and I have not figured that out yet. Look like the only way to activate the function is to push on the lower left button. I have tried all the right hand buttons without any luck.

"Mirrorless camera are good at what they are as a compact camera for travelling and street photography. When one need to have reasonably fast tracking focus, they fail miserably. "

I find that street photography needs reasonably quick AF (if you use AF). I think it's funny that people keep touting the Fujis as "street photography" cameras when in fact they're really not excellent for that either.

It seems that looks can influence people to believe many things. Just because it appears to be a rangefinder doesn't make it the perfect camera for street photography.

JD....there are literally hundreds of online sites showcasing fuji / mirrorless cameras in daily use for street photography. In fact, the most prominent and best of this genre won't use DSLRs due to their scare factor on the general public, so not sure where you draw your conclusion from. These photographers aren't using point-n-shoots.

If they are serious about attracting pros to ditch their DSLRs and move to mirror less, they need to come out with a fixed maximum aperture of 2.8 lens. Otherwise, forget about it. Even their 18-55mm lens does not have a fixed maximum aperture. And that is the reason why I still stick to Canon system.

Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 is a APS-C good quality lens, but it's quite expensive and huge... would not match very well the size of xpro1. I would rather use some high quality fast primes like the ones Fuji provide!

1. Constant aperture is operationally much easier. With a variable-aperture lens, you set aperture, then zoom in beyond where this aperture was available - what is it now? You have to look instead of just knowing. Now you zoom out back - will it return to where it was? Why, what about if you stop down 1/3 of a stop - will it return to 1/3 of a stop to where it has been? You have to change it every time you zoom - major hassle and loss of time=shots=(for pros) money.2. Outside of studio/macro, primes are useless. Nobody is going to wait until you change lenses, and try doing it in dusty environment, in a crowd or rain etc. So you end up with wrong composition every time. Just toys. Unless there are simply no zoom covering the range and you will be cropping anyway.

They would be better off just providing constant f/4 if size weight is a concern. Sony did a MUCH better job with 16-70/4.And no, 18-55/2.8 for mirrorless does not have to be as big as 17-55/2.8 for DSLR - no backfocus to design and correct for in a camera with 18mm flange vs a camera with 45mm flange. Not to mention the availability of software corrections right from the start.

I was taken by the quality of Fujifilm cameras and lenses. Not only optical quality but also craftsmanship quality. It was major reason why I sold my Nikon D7000 and all those plastic Nikon lenses made in China, Thailand and so on.Now, I'm reading that new Fuji lenses are plastic and made in China (XC 16-50mm OIS and XF 27mm (as written on fujirumors.com - First Look: X-M1 with New Kit Zoom and Pancake Lens). An idea of photographic company that is going to bring quality materials and some quality spirit is gone. I hope not but it seems like things are going this way.Reading some day that X-Pro 2 or X-E 2 are made in China I would sell it all away. I don't want to buy plastic in China made lenses and cameras. I want in Japan made metal quality. For me, buying Fuji was not only buying photographic tool, it was also investment in the future! It was some kind of promise many photographers had accepted.I hope we can call Go Fuji Go in the future again!

I suspect that the profits Fuji make on cameras like the XM1 and XA1 are the resource that will enable them to continue to make higher level cameras like the XPro1 and XE1. Plus their lower volume prime lenses that appeal to pros and enthusiasts. Anything they can do to broaden their base is a therefore a good thing. And lets not pretend that the metal shells of the XPro1 and XE1 reflect an entirely metal structure.......there are plastics in their construction too.

Relax. So the very cheapest zooms and primes of the lineup use some plastic. Every other lens is Made in Japan and entirely metal-bodied. Even the filter threads are metal. The upcoming 56/1.2 leaked shots say "Made in Japan", fitting for what will surely be a $999+ lens.

@ Jiri Folta"For me, buying Fuji was not only buying photographic tool, it was also investment in the future!" And there is the problem Jiri. You see Fuji makes PHOTOGRAPHIC TOOLS and not "future investments". Try real estate or art and precious metals. Seriously man, you need to learn what is important, country of origin of my equipment has nothing to do with my photography.BTW don't use your lenses to crack nuts and you will see that even plastic ones can deliver in hands of people that actually DO photo instead of moaning about how much metal is in their lens.

" country of origin of my equipment has nothing to do with my photography."

For some people it's not a matter of photography. I prefer not to buy Chinese (if I can help it) from a humanitarian/ecological standpoint. The Chinese do not treat their workers or citizens well and they do not care one iota for the havoc they wreak upon the planet with their chemical waste.

It may not have anything to do with my photography, but I'd like to think that by giving as little as possible of my hard earned money to rich Chinese exploiting the poor I can make a tiny difference.

JDThomas You represent the typical ignorant yank 'activist' ... "I prefer not to buy Chinese (if I can help it) from a humanitarian/ecological standpoint." and "they do not care one iota for the havoc they wreak upon the planet with their chemical waste." I'll call your BS and ask you to back it up with fact... you know... true and factual evidence like for example.. China produces 5.4 tonnes of green house emissions per person per year... want to guess how much people like you in the US produce? 17.3 tonnes! or roughly more than 3 times as much as those disgusting ecologically degenerate Chinese, I wonder what that makes you then huh? and just to put in all into perspective the US is responsible for almost a third of ALL emissions ever produced IN HISTORY! I'm more than happy to provide you with enough evidence to show the real ecological degenerates on this planet are people just like you, right there in the good old USofA

Thanks for the feedback. I've double-checked and can confirm that these are a) 100% crops and b) shouldn't be resized by your browser. (Unless you're asking your browser to magnify the page, of course, which will mess everything up - but I can't do anything about that.)

To be honest, I think you're simply restating my main point. The images from this lens look great until you extract 100% crops and view them in isolation, at which point they look oddly soft, as if they've been upsampled slightly after demosaicing. And it turns out that there's a straightforward explanation for this - they have, due to the process of distortion correction.

thanks, Andy, for clarifying this!I was wondering why they didn't decide to push top and bottom inwards instead, but then you would end up with a smaller image/pixel count.Well, maybe downsampling by the rigth margin might regain sharpness in the middle - but then again we are only counting pixels...

@yabookie Fuji's 1st gen is already better than anything Sony has for it's Nex users. it also has good looks, egronomics, soul & an optical viewfinder/hybrid vf. And maybe in the next decade or 2 Sony will give you guys a f1.4 lens. (but I wouldn't count on an f1.2 lens or optical viewfinder/hybrid vf- I don't think Sony likes it's users that much.)

Tarting up a system with already a poor speed hunting autofocus will not induce me to spend more on lenses. l'll stick to 18/35/60. Before soliciting me to spend more fix first what's wrong and get rid of those idiotic non reversible hoods.

This seems to be a constant source of confusion to many readers, but the awards aren't connected to the numerical scores. Two different lenses (or cameras) may be equally good in all categories measured by DPR, and get the same score, but still get different awards, because the reviewer likes one more than the other, purely subjectively. It's like the editor's picks in a review magazine, just an opinion.

Dp needs another scale - or start beeing true to the logic of numbers.

100% should mean the perfect camera. 0% should mean no camera. Everything inbetween adheres to the logic of numbers everywhere else in the real world. Higher is more or better. There is no arguing that I'd prefer a raise of 20% more than 3%. Reverse for costs.

The APC Fuji System Lenses are better comparing both the 12-35 2.8 & 35-100 2.8 while great lenses the larger sensor of the Fuji X makes a difference even though the F-Stop is not equal. What ever the lens formula for Fuji X is, it is noticeable better than Panasonic or Olympus based on what exists and your are able to actually buy today. Judge a review by the cons or negatives to decide if it is your deal breaker.I have owned the MFT's lenses I mentioned plus others so it is from 1st hand knowledge and use I see the difference in output.

I long for the days when lens designers had no choice but to correct lens flaws in the lens itself. Old fashioned, I know. For a lot of subjects, the pincushion won't be noticeable but now that we're complacent about software fixing things it's worth noting that correcting pincushion correction seems to damage image quality more than correcting barrel distortion.

Well. I think they look soft too on a pixel level, which also means you lose fine texture. The uncorrected ones don't look as bad, but I'm not impressed. For architectural scenes, the pincushion distortion will be visible in the uncorrected photos, which - again - could be a dealbreaker.

It all depends what you are used to seeing, of course. If you're used to very sharp pro zooms or macro lenses, this does seem soft in comparison. I've also seen photos from cheap lenses quite a bit sharper than this, no matter what some people might think.

Surely the slight haloing affect you see in most of the photos isn't due to the sensor, is it? Reminds me of pictures from the Sony RX100 for some reason.

Will any of this matter? That's another question altogether, and it depends on how big your prints are, and whether you're cropping like crazy because this focal range really is too short for what you want to take pictures of.

As an owner of this lens I can say the IQ is fantastic. I did a few quick tripod tests stopped down against my old Nikon 70-200 VR I and they tied. Shortly after sold the Nikon lens and began selling off the rest of my Nikon gear. I use Capture One 7 Express when I shoot RAW but jpegs are often good enough.

I own and use this lens as well in a maritime environment, on rolling ships, etc. The optics are first rate, the OIS is impressive, as good as anything Canon or Nikon makes. On occassion, it is difficult to capture focus on a hazy day, but simple to use manual with focus peaking/magnification, which is not available on DSLR's. It is an expensive lens in some respects, compared to kit 55-200mm lenses from Canikon, but it is interesting to note DP review didn't compare this lens to the cheap kit ones, it compared it to the Nikon, Canon, Sony 70-200mm 2.8 lenses, all in the 2500.00 price category. This alone speaks volumes, if you are listening...

At a first glance the speed of this lens really looks better/faster than normal DSLR telezooms. However important is also the course of the lens speed. My former Pentax DA 55-300mm had f4-5,8, what looks considerably worse. However at 100mm it still had f4 and at 200mm it had f4,5 (jumped to f5,6 at 210mm). So basically the same speed as this Fujinon, but for fraction of the price (cca. 280 EUR).

> And we can't totally ignore the fact that at around $700 / £580, this is one of the most expensive 'small' telephoto zooms on the market.

What would be a small zoom at the same price point that could match it in quality? I find the good Panasonic 35-100mm expensive. This zoom seems fair priced for the quality it delivers (I own and love it).

And yes, AF sucks . Not that big deal for me as I like to use tele on more static objects.

By the way the lens hood is not that great for mounting. Feels like these older Canon lens hoods.

Haha, yabokkie - always a fun thing to read you.... I guess you have never touched a recent Fuji lens, have you? ;)Fuji is building the Hassy lenses for the H System - this system ist not to be confused with the Lunar and the like (just to make sure...;)).

@yabokkieFuji has been making some of THE most expensive and advanced lenses that exist. They have been making lenses as OEM for Hasselblad for many, many years. Google "hasselblad" since you apparently have never heard of them and see what quality lenses are.Then we have Fuji manufactoring of Pro film/movie/broadcasting lenses. Some of these lenses (if not all) cost or start at the cost of a good mid sized saloon car. Fuji has been doing that for many years now.You really need to take a brake from commenting on this site kiddo. I have seen another couple of your comments and everywhere you go you seem to pour out ignorance.

very different lenses that require very different technologies and know-hows. just have a look at lenses made by Nikon and Olympus before and after 2007 and think for a while how you will explain what you observed.

also Nikon is one of the best lithography stepper makers for 20-30 years (super large aperture, super precision large format camera?) but their mass market photographic lenses before 2007 were quite rubbish.

it doesn't." You just clearly showed you have NO IDEA, like ZERO, of what you are talking about. There is definitively *at least some know how* that translates. From lens coatings, to materials, etc.

The primes in the Fuji X trans system are pretty much all superb, sans the 18mm. Have you actually *used them?*

And this? "Japanese have some best technologies but still are defeated by Americans, Koreans, and Taiwanese in many fields. same for Germans who just cannot compete whatever high end products they have."

Using ACR instead of Iridient or Capture One makes the images look softer than they actually are. YMMV depending on raw converter, and I think it's important to talk about that when reviewing Fuji X lenses.

You can, of course, make images look as sharp or as soft as you like in any RAW converter, just by changing the sharpening settings. The ACR conversions shown in this review don't look radically different from the camera's JPEGs.

Totally Agree with Asylum..many have complained about that issue before..Fuji using a different sensor, iridient is the best software to develop your raws and results are different. I'd recommend mr Andy to browse on the net to try to understand what Asylum means..

I'm sure Iridient Raw developer is great, but I don't use a Mac. Meanwhile, if you actually read the review, you'll see I used Capture One as well as ACR. It applies more sharpening by default, but even so the images with distortion correction applied inevitably look a little soft on the pixel level. And, as I pointed out in the review, this is mainly of academic interest - it doesn't really matter much in practice.

"You can, of course, make images look as sharp or as soft as you like in any RAW converter, just by changing the sharpening settings. "Not sure of the context here, but...Can a soft image from poor optics be brought into sharp focus by changing the sharpening settings??? Surely enhancing edge contrast by software is not the same as a sharp image (from great lens optics) presented to the sensor. just saying. maybe that's not what you meant.

@siggo: No, that's not what I meant. The context here is about the visual differences in output offered by various RAW converters from any given file. In general, Capture One will apply more sharpening to files from any camera, and therefore make images look sharper. This doesn't mean ACR is wrong - more that it starts from a different aesthetic decision.

Well... you cannot make an image as sharp or blurry as you want - however much all photographers wishes that were true. Blurry, yes. Sharp: well, that depends on how sharp it is to start with, unfortunately.

@Andy - Sorry but I have to strongly disagree with you here. It's not a matter of increasing the sharpness- the ACR current raw converter simply does not handle Xtrans well doing smearing of the color. Capture One simply decodes the data better, pretty much realizing the potential for Xtrans.

While dpreview wants to keep a level field by using the same raw converter the truth is current Adobe raw is just not a good idea for Xtrans, and while you guys keep sticking to that line all you are doing is completely going over the potential of the sensor.

@ Andy - "Capture One will apply more sharpening to files from any camera, and therefore make images look sharper. This doesn't mean ACR is wrong - more that it starts from a different aesthetic decision."

No, no, no. Sorry, check out several images for yourself with ACR and Capture One on for example forbidden traffic signs where the red text leaves about 1 pixel wide white to the end of the metallic sign. Adobe's stuff simply smears the color, Capture one will correctly decode the data to one pixel in that situation.

This is NOT just a different "aesthetic decision" by Adobe and Capture one - this is that the algorithm they are using is different, it shows and Capture One simply does overall much better.

This has been examined and discussed to great extent- look at the first Adobe Pass at Xtrnas- it was downright horrible. It's not the best still and even the updated Silky Pix does overall better (note how Silky Pix got updated for improved Xtrans decoding).

And by the way, yes Iridient will indeed vastly more detail than Adobe's raw on Xtrans and no amount of sharpening on the Adobe setting will bring you the same detail. That said Iridient does have its own artifacts to deal with but in a lot of cases they don't matter compared to the extra detail you get, and they have a lot of tweak ability. I still find Capture One 7 latest the best balance for Xtrans.

There's much more to a lens than just sharpness (which in my experience depends mostly on ensuring the camera is tightly attached to a heavy tripod). To create beauty, a lens has to be able to capture the shape, weight, and tonality of objects; and it has to convey distance in a convincing way. In Leica circles they call it "drawing," as in "the drawing quality of this Leica Summarit is simply exquisite." So Andy, you just keep shooting photos of the real world and remember: Honi soit qui mal y pense.

@ Andy - Didn't catch the Capture One reference, my apologies there. The original comment was simply due to the fact that users will be comparing the files to lenses of other systems, and Adobe doesn't treat X-Trans files as well as standard bayer files. Not a big deal, just would have been a nice addition. Keep up the solid work.

I own the 55-200, and find the sharpness pretty incredible for a lens of this sort. It's AF gets pretty doggish in low light though, due to being on a CDAF system that isn't the best to start with. Looking forward to the 2nd generation of XF Mount cameras.